Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!

[hblair]

Thanks sandman. I agree that it would be difficult to police "virtual" child porn.

As far as the comparison to a man being shot in the head, Shooting an innocent person in the head is illegal. If one were to snap a photo of an innocent person being shot in the head and the FBI see it, there would likely be an investigation. Because it is illegal to murder. The same is true with child porn. It's very existance implies that a crime has been committed.

Also, pornographic images of children, virtual or not, fuel the fires of sick, twisted lust in molesters minds. I say to heck with the first ammendment in cases like this, IMO it should be modified er somehting. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say even "virtual" child porn should be illegal. Appoint a commision or something to determine what is adult or what is not. I know that sounds crazy, but I fell it is better than the alternative. People will just continue to push the law otherwise. Computer generated images can be made to look almost like the real thing.

[SOB]

Who cares if computer generated images look like the real thing?  Producing them or viewing them isn't hurting anyone, and I'd personally much rather have any sick bastard who'd be prone to looking at such material be kept safely behind his computer screen jerking off than out looking for release elsewhere.  Regardless, this was a decision on a specific act/bill/whatever and as far as I'm concerned their reasoning behind it was sound.  It was nice to see Eagler whip out his stock "another loss for the country's morality" post tho'.


SOB

[hblair]

Originally posted by SOB
I'd personally much rather have any sick bastard who'd be prone to looking at such material be kept safely behind his computer screen jerking off than out looking for release elsewhere

SOB

Interesting point SOB.

Having said that, can I borrow another 50 megs of webspace?

your pal,
HB

[Eagler]

Your welcome SOB

but don't you think many will "graduate" from their computer screens to "live" action? The very least, it'll feed their twisted desires.
It's sick and should be stamped out in all forms.

[Sandman]

Oooh... Now the escalating depravity arguement... wtg Eagler.

The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a persons private thoughts. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

[Zippatuh]

Get on it Sandman!  I defer any of my arguments to Sandman as he appears to be well informed of the situation and ruling at hand.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oooh... Now the escalating depravity arguement... wtg Eagler.

 

Well sure.......just like "Doom" caused Columbine, and Ozzie Osbourne made some kid commit suicide!

Sounds like the Supremes made a very difficult and courageous discision. Can't call it a crime if the only thing having illegal sex is a pixel.

The true measure of freedom of speech is how well we protect the speech we hate.

[AKSWulfe]

It's only okay because politicians are criminals and pedophiles!
-SW

[hblair]

Originally posted by midnight Target


Well sure.......just like "Doom" caused Columbine, and Ozzie Osbourne made some kid commit suicide!

Sounds like the Supremes made a very difficult and courageous discision. Can't call it a crime if the only thing having illegal sex is a pixel.

The true measure of freedom of speech is how well we protect the speech we hate.

bah.

I know of 2 people at a local jail who were busted on child molestation charges. They both stumbled across child porn on the web and were mesmorized by it. They told me they had never thought of children having sex before that (and they had no reason to lie to me). But they became obsessed, and eventually solicited sex with children online. I think one of them actually had sex with some kids before he got caught. True, there was something wrong with them before they saw the images, but they didn't even know it.


BTW, what keeps a person from taking a photo, then running it through some software and giving it a skewed digital look? This seems so open ended to me.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Eagler
Your welcome SOB

but don't you think many will "graduate" from their computer screens to "live" action? The very least, it'll feed their twisted desires.
It's sick and should be stamped out in all forms.

That's a good question...and I'll defer that answer to psychologists.  If they're twisted enough to like that toejam, they should get help.  If they don't get help, and look at virtual pictures on their computer, then they're the only ones who have to live with it.  The moment they should choose to act on their fantasies with a live child is the moment they've also lost their right to live in society, imo, and should be shot promptly.

The problem I see with making a fake picture illegal is that is opens up the possibility for making other 'fake' things illegal.  I do see a correlation between fake child porn being illegal and the possibility of fake killing (ie: doom/wolfenstein/quake/etc) also being illegal.  It's sick that some person would be aroused by virtual child porn.  But then, I suppose you could also call it sick when I get a big grin and let out a sadistic laugh as I torch several people with a flame thrower in Return to Castle Wolfenstein.  


SOB

[midnight Target]

HB,

I suppose it is possible for a virtual picture to inflame illegal desires. Is this enough of a reason to make this form of speech illegal? I don't think so.
There was a video game produced a couple of years ago called "Going Postal" or something like that. In the game you got points for shooting co-workers, but if you wanted to, the school bus could be blown up too. Bottom line, this seems as dangerous to me as virtual child porn, but we cannot restrict free speech without losing something as a society.

[hblair]

Quit making such good arguements please.
Remember, I am right and you are wrong.

[AKDejaVu]

I had a friend (co-worker) that was recently sent to jail for 7 1/2 years for molesting his 15 year old step-daughter.

I worked with this person for about 4 years prior to the event.  He tried to blame it on Desert Storm (Was out on mental disability from military) and child porn on the web... but I knew differently.

This person would tell stories from 15 years ago when he was first in the military about how he was the new-arrival laison for the base.  He'd scam every new female troop that arrived and almost always was able to bag them before they wisened up to the scene.  He was pleased with that.

He'd tell stories about the step daughter "aproaching" him as if to justify his longing for her.  Finally he raped her.  She was so thrilled about it that she left teeth marks almost all the way to the bone on his forearm.

This person still maintains that child pornography and the Gulf War drove him to this.

I know better.

As for the decision... I commend it.  It is always tricky when someone attempts to broaden the definition of morality.  Usually... I find those attempted definitions to be far too broad sweeping.  I believe this was the case in this situation.

AKDejaVu

[SOB]

Originally posted by hblair
I know of 2 people at a local jail who were busted on child molestation charges. They both stumbled across child porn on the web and were mesmorized by it. They told me they had never thought of children having sex before that (and they had no reason to lie to me). But they became obsessed, and eventually solicited sex with children online. I think one of them actually had sex with some kids before he got caught. True, there was something wrong with them before they saw the images, but they didn't even know it.

BTW, what keeps a person from taking a photo, then running it through some software and giving it a skewed digital look? This seems so open ended to me.

Like you said, they were sick in the head before.  One good reason for them to lie to you (and themselves) would be to try and justify their actions somewhat.  "I'm sick...if it wasn't for that evil online child porn from the devil I woulda never..."  A normal person who stumbled across child porn on the internet would promptly delete it and hope that they never had the misfortune of stumbling across it again.

I understand your position though...it's a fine line between right to privacy and the good of society.  Ultimately, I think the government should stay out of people's business if they choose to keep it private and not hurt others with it.  On the other side of the coin, the above two examples crossed the line in the other direction and should be delt with.  In my opinion they lost their right to live in society...others may have a softer opinion.


SOB

[batdog]

Ever notice all the friggen "Young" Porn sites out there now. Its kind of disturbing. I surf porn now and then... but I'd rather eat a bullet than hurt or contibute to the hurt of a child.

To me its just bloody common sense... you dont mess w/Kids. You SHOULDNT have kids having sex in movies, virtual or otherwise... its sick. Hell some societies w/out execute a man for sleeping w/a girl that wasnt "of age".


xBAT